i'm sam sachs in for tom hartman in washington d.c. here's what's coming up tonight on the big picture today the dow jones went over fourteen thousand points for the first time in five years the economy added more jobs in january according to the new jobs report but can the american economy ever truly recover without more federal investments in education green energy and infrastructure we'll debate this issue in tonight's big picture rumble and in the second half of tonight's show we'll take another look at a conversation tom had with susan cain an author and former wall street attorney who understands just how powerful introverts are to our society. so it's friday night which means we fight or rumble joining me for tonight's big

picture rumble our marc harrold libertarian commentator and attorney neil munro white house reporter with the daily caller and ben cohen editor of the daily banter and founder of the banter media group thank you gentlemen for joining me let's get started so we have new job or job numbers released today count me out one hundred fifty seven thousand jobs in january employment rate ticked up slightly because more people are out there looking at seven point nine percent another important number a lot of the jobs numbers from last year were revised so that we have an average of one hundred eighty one thousand jobs created each month in two thousand and twelve so i think there's two issues here one when republicans say that the president hasn't created any jobs they are living in a fantasy world according to bloomberg about five and a half million jobs of the eight million jobs lost in the recession i've been in that recession started a year and a half for the president took office have been recovered and two i mean is this the sort of growth we want to mean a lot of these are minimum wage jobs and can we really have a strong economy until we get some mask. federal investments in infrastructure and

green energy and education mark will let you start first of all if you believe the numbers because it's and it's the government on the other numbers the government scoring themselves based and we've got to say all of that refers to the first one and i don't have any evidence that the raw data but i don't know anybody has any evidence that they're right a lot of these are listed numbers we've ever always you example that they can all be wrong and that's always the government creating itself i'm not going to well i'm ok you know a lot of these are low paying jobs you have a lot of still even when they create jobs take a little issue the president didn't create any jobs it's not that the president's the quarterback it's too much credit when it's good on jobs and too much blame when bad he didn't create them do we need more federal government investment no we need less the federal government to give more and more out of the way the federal government should be paying for the very limited things the constitution tells us to do it nothing else and they should be doing no investment what they should be doing is paying their own way with as little tax money as they can steal and then getting out of the way and let the economy and i'll let you jump in here just a second but i want to show up with a chart here and this is about construction jobs that we've had. and if we can

bring up the construction jobs chart here it is right here if you look in two thousand and six we had you know roughly seventy six men half a million people working seven half million people working in construction jobs that's in two thousand and six today we have about five and a half million so if we were just back to where we were in two thousand and six as far as building things that be two million more jobs of people building roads bridges stuff like that we currently have a two trillion dollar infrastructure deficit that's apparently going to cost us three million jobs over the next ten years isn't it just simple don't we invest in infrastructure put people back to work you know we can always use construction workers to tear down the rotting houses that the government helped build through in two thousand when we build so many houses we have a real estate bubble that you see in the employment that's the government we have and i would like to point out you know recently intelligent guy watch i can make one hundred fifty seven thousand disappear to one hundred sixty six thousand of them are immigrants roughly eighty eight thousand of them are new graduates to rival of these new new jobs. leads to

a level employment it doesn't actually juice unemployment by one scrap so we can get one hundred fifty thousand jobs per month for ever and we will never reduce the rate something's wrong so then what how do we do that how do we reduce the import of what i'm going to service a do with the free market it seems to work wherever it's tried. serving to understand whether this is an r.v. logic who all human or a factual human is for us a government is to get out of the way us she categorically states that the government cannot create jobs where the government can create government jobs the government can do things that help to create jobs in the private sector but it's my it's bad from the three thousand to. two dozen able to push that didn't save the banking sector save certain parts of it but it said you want to road and not save fuel save some jobs yeah but i didn't agree with the bailout it was a step by the stimulus package that we actually didn't agree with but you were you guys you know money comes from yes the bailout saved a bunch of jobs temporarily before it caused the need for the bailouts the first

place the government policies you can't talk credit to the the tax money going to somebody's pocket with that money they may have created jobs in the process so it's not it was state of was the government's fault because it was because it's we know this for a fact i'm sorry the government urged pressured bribed really stay calm his concession always build houses like crazy that he did we got the bubble and the first thing the progressives did was look around and say who could blame this disaster on the banks this is a problem. this is a banking crisis this is a banking program and it's deregulation are not bribed to do that by the government and we know this is going to leave. i think you're right the government is responsible in the sense that the government wouldn't be able to get rid of a lot of the regulations around two thousand and nine the government creates a lot of regulation starting in one thousand nine hundred six that incentivized threatened and bribed the banks so that if you renew a show the derivatives market may have to do it of course you know that has nothing to do with her sleep with what happened to her for keep. it was about that the

deregulation of wall street exacerbated the consequences of the regulation of the real estate industry it's complicated but government had a central role in creating that disastrous bubble in some ways it helped. minimize the damage after ok i don't want to get into into replaying what happened leading into that bubble but in regard to the question i asked you before about why don't we spend two trillion dollars of government money to build roads and bridges you dodge and instead we should be tearing down homes what do you think about honestly building roads and bridges and putting americans to work but what might help but if you can if the progresses are always looking for the thing to repair the thing the damage they already caused and if you focus on another spending program you really distracting yourself from what counts which is giving business men and women the confidence to risk their money and their time on how to create these very simple progressive cities on their hands and it means they can't do squat about the government and the government know that it is quiet progressives have to admit like taking your problem and your government contracts and they spending less and less

money most governments when you're seeing austerity measures possed in pretty much every european country the most this is all there is a valid point if we can chart one this is about austerity here we've already had a lot of spending cuts dept put coming down the pike here about a trillion dollars and here's here it is this year in two thousand and thirteen the united states is going to have austerity equating about two and a half percent of g.d.p. which is more than the u.k. which is more than france which is more than spain spain has the highest unemployment rate in the in the eurozone as a result of this crisis and their decision to resort to austerity to solve it in the u.k. is about to be in a triple dip recession as a result of our spirit so here we are going down the same exact path cutting spending getting government out of the way progressive sitting on their hands as you say and it's i mean it's causing economic ruin in europe that's right guys are wonderful in what they cost. more let's spend what you call austerity is a slowdown in growth these people are not real. cutting government very much just

moving money around very few countries are cutting and by the way spain is in a truly disastrous situation because yes it had the biggest government sponsored real estate bubble during the two thousand so. quite grasp this concept of government sponsored housing bubble when the government essentially deregulated thought out to industry you must understand what happened the government regulation was shot and it was deregulation them it was really think i have friends that work in. is to cheat seeing reforms to stop that kind of practice last minute let's not let's move on to that topic a little bit here let's talk about finance and talk about wall street here first off in new jersey chris christie just vetoed a minimum wage to help working people raise the minimum wage in the state from seven twenty five to fifty you vetoed it and then he vetoed legislation that would have given the state authority to buy up foreclosed homes turn them into low income housing for people who lost their homes and even to another piece of legislation they would have given the state the ability to pay off homeowners who've lost their

jobs in this recession or are under employed to help stay in their homes to avoid foreclosure their vetoed all those at the same time we see banks we saw wall street past the fourteen thousand mark and we have a new report of adele's spread that shows twelve banks own seventy percent of all banking assets so wall to wall street especially the big banks that got bailed out are doing just fine while homeowners are still screwed there's about three to ten million homes that are still on virgin or that high and low so here's the question in two thousand and set of bailing out the banks what if we bailed out homeowners gave money to homeowners to then pay down their mortgages to the banks these so-called toxic mortgages where would we be today would we better off would be better off if not bailing out the banks are the homeowners because yes well we've got here is crony capitalism what democrats pay their friends on wall street insiders and we might be better in a great depression market was that well i don't think we'd be in the great depression i agree we shouldn't be able to either party out would we be better or worse well we're in a bad shape i don't know if the other way would have worked better i think the governor made the right decision. because there's first of all when you get into

this you're infringing on private contracts they're buying this up they're buying poor property they're going to do something good with it that's fine but you're going around you're bailing someone out and again when the government goes and retroactively start bailing people out from their bad decisions or unfortunate times it almost always ends in fiscal disaster down the road it's almost always a kick the can down the road kind of thing it seems good now it gets you elected now and it made a little you to move money around on the books but it never makes long term growth because you're bailing people out of bed like what do we bail out rich people they kind of just keep the cash but when we bail out working people they don't spend that money in an economy that generates they gotta want to bail anybody out i agree i don't think we should bail the rich out either i mean i guess it's consistent your position is different consistent but that's the what happens in government you see. this cooper welfare system where you have a free market for the poor and you have a massive social welfare state for the rich which is show you to me to a certain extent pretty good with that and we're not going to have as we go into the market they have a highly regulated system for the poor where they're forced to use government

schools government hospitals who under government these poor people are regular you have the one of these hacks is very little by social control it was a tax it's very very just social control you they tell you that you don't pay taxes they take taxes and then they give you your money back if you do things they like you get married you buy a house you buy a certain kind of why they got a certain money back i don't know how the government the one way that they control used by taxes people make choices do you get all this is how it is to redistribute wealth when it comes down to it especially when you have the right because firstly when you have a four hundred billion interest enough to run the government do the very limited things the constitution says do anything else is tyranny no that's if you get in some form it's not that scary about it it's tyrannical to go beyond the constitution to just do stuff that's a coherent liberal argument for tearing our but there's also another way of just being money you just give people say ten thousand dollars in cash at the begin the end say now make your own mistakes make your own adventures what we have now is a system where a whole bunch of middle class and professional people like us get to handle the money as we handed out to the poor and guess what we always take our ten percent only to. if you could spend that we have four hundred people in america one point

seven trillion dollars worth of wealth and are just sitting on that money can't possibly spend it so we have roughly a trillion dollars of wealth that sidelined because nobody can spend that much money in their lifetime their kids' lifetime their kids going to like to get a new program yet just can't get what they're sitting on you because you want to much taxes on it you free up the creditors they'll start as they can the real fire that i was in pairs of pants they write for the managers the rich can always write you've got to make it a market they want to change it so they're also scared about spending money it occurred to me that sort of that's why you need government to come in and reassure the market that the economy works government spending helps the economy governor you can come and spend and second how he does or anything i mean the government reassuring me that is the nanny state i don't see what they i didn't get out i didn't get signed ok ok ok i want to do it and i do trust americans know let's make their own leaders there will come back with more more rubble coming up after the break.

let me let me i want to know we're going to let me ask you a question. here on this network is what we're having the debate we have our knives out if. we do this right it's a bad thing never again we're in a situation where b. and i don't even talk about the surveillance me. you know sometimes you see a story and it seems so for lengthly you think you understand it and then you glimpse something else and you hear or see some other part of it and realize everything you thought you knew you don't know i'm sorry welcome to the big picture .

here is mitt romney trying to figure out the name of that thing that we americans call a dog. i'm sorry i'm just a guy who cares an awful lot but you sir are a fool you know what that is my other terrorist cells in your neighborhood want to give us a defeat terrorism the olympic the christian point you. can secure believe. that if you know the group are going to distract us from what you and i should care about because they're profit driven industry that sells a sensationalistic garbage he calls it breaking news i'm happy martin and we're going to break that. up.

welcome back to big picture joining me tonight are mark erald neil munro and cohen all right guys let's get back to it i want to talk about president obama in something that the philosopher linguist professor whatever noam chomsky this is what he said about president obama just this week let's play the clip. is basically . what you said it would have been called. several decades ago a moderate republican. kind of a mainstream centrist with some concerns for. liberal ideals and conception but not much in the way of principle or commitment and i want to run down a list here quick the individual mandate obamacare originally heritage foundation idea implemented by mitt romney in massachusetts nixon came up with the employer mandate a key part of obamacare cap and trade that's

a republican idea used by republicans throughout history taxes lower under obama than any democratic president in modern history at least he's expanded the war on terror corporate profits as a percentage of g.d.p. are higher than they've been since world war two and working wages he's done nothing for unions destruction of civil liberties is the president really a socialist male ethos socialist and by the way it was he wasn't is he one of the lefty from the discussion about this and it turns out chomsky. is. correct yes but the republicans in those days where they were progresses they believed that they clever people like them could guide citing all the good like mayor lindsey's rick one city after another the mayor obama is not a socialist he's a progressive through our leaders are not evil i'm a socialist why do you guys call themselves liberals that american education system in the media are terrible they do not distinguish between socialists and progressives americans look for a word to describe government overreach into business. and to go with socialist

really he is a progresses he's ok with crony capitalism he doesn't mind the rich really getting rich as long as the progresses are left in political power and they get their percentage of every deal and that's that's why wall street goes up the banks get bigger because the president is finding i think on the on social issues that's where he's got his progressive chops are you fighting for marriage equality don't ask don't tell everything like that ok but he but he's losing on drones he's not doing anything about the war on drugs get most still open and on the war of terror i think he's exactly where the defense industry would want any modern or any i'm sorry any republican or any democrat to be he's made each right there with that issue he's in with goldman sachs and private equity like anybody who's going to us here in the panel think that the president is a socialist or super progressive here isn't that careful about the words and most americans do not know the distinction let's not be mean about it this is or how would you define him he's basically an international internationalist progressive. distinctly different he's a court he's

a cautious but very ambitious progressive as it is he's managed to shift in a way that he's got he's managed to get government by not in control of the health care sector that's a big deal he's grabbing control of the oval sector the student loan sector he's got the issue of the problem of kerry expanded the private insurance sector but i mean as a as a as a progressive i don't know what your identify yourself to be but i mean do you sense frustration watching the president operate these last four years and i mean yeah and civil liberties i have serious problems with his agenda i do think. he is a progressive in the fact that he wants to use the government to try and do some good i think that he's a strong political reality but he called there's a lot stuff he called do. and in that sense i think to his heart he is more of a redistributionist than he's he's. a progressive compared maybe to the past three or two presidents before him but isn't that a sign that new. you guys have won over the last thirty years that the entire

political spectrum has shifted to the right drastically that if someone like president obama is still called able progressive or liberal when he can he's a tour in britain we couldn't get more exact going on saturday but bush politics are different forgive the phrase didn't have that our politics have moved on we're no longer the old left right working class versus upper class it's now we're in a progressive base do we have the clever people the postgraduates aligned with the poor in them and the people in the edge of society in order to go after the center of society basically middle class who have the money and in that sense american politics is very different from the stark in what he used and we need not see all this progressive is going after the united states and everything like that the middle class you're talking about i don't see that happening you've got me on that particular point but my general rule applies the democratic party is the party of the subgroups aligned on the leadership of the progressives to go after for give to the mainstream the middle and middle class people with the money all right let's talk about guns we had the big senate judiciary committee hearing on guns this week

there was gabby giffords there wayne la pierre there. i personally don't think an assault weapons ban is going to make it out of congress i don't think there's any hope of that it barely got out when democrats were you know had a lot more power in congress back in ninety four but there's two other issues two other main issues universal background checks and high capacity and magazines according to a gallup poll this week only eight percent of the nation only eight percent of everyone in america agrees with the n.r.a. in opposing universal background checks put that in perspective more people approve of congress polygamy and human cloning than agree with the n.r.a. his position on background checks. isn't isn't this a no brainer here that we should have universal background checks as at least some part of gun control that comes out of this well this is sort of a poll question somebody calls you up out of the blue and says are you in favor of the environment you know universal background checks what are we talking about how universal are they i mean what are the actual exchanges for privacy what are these actual way they don't get in road to constitutional liberties i don't know how this

would work i don't know if people even i mean this is in england where like a friend of mine got a name that he had to get to since he had to get two psychologists to sign off and say that he has no history of mental illness if i have to let us know that i don't think that any seven when i want to go buy a gun and i want i got to go find two doctors many of whom are against guns most likely i go out and find them i'm going to get two notes to go exercise a constitutional right to have to get to doctor's notes to go vote just to prove i'm not crazy i mean to me this is the idea that there's this universal system i mean if you just hit a button to some guy and makes me pretty good has access to the universe we should have said that about you that there was a there was a program you quote like almost twelve thousand deaths a year from guns you just had twenty kids massacred in a school kid i'm talking this six you were the problem doesn't even over using guns know it was going on at once was a danger human nature is a criminal acts are being committed you want to pass more laws which criminal if you want to pass laws that are going to influence homicide suicidal and criminal what about about what are we talking about the guns that that the weapon you should

do what you're talking about is the same sort of mechanism if you were to talk about this is an order of helmets and you have to do in return rosie ok same sort of system you have to do that kind of devalue have to you have to submit citizen bleeders that is that your game system that you've been limited to press is going to have very little or no vote is where you take your medicine now you are also let's start with the easy stuff and start by actually enforcing the law as it is now and so the national rifle association is out making the reason the request of the administration that they actually enforce the law there was seventy seven thousand cases where people full improperly applied for guns used basic information and this president and his people only enforced about sixty six cases i agree. thank you but then you know we're going to some of the what are you a persuade to gun the gun rights guys to do more gun control when you actually enforce the existing tele once we started forcing the background checks on the sixty percent of guns that do get background checks suddenly then or it would be like ok now you're forcing that we agree the forty percent that are background checks will be about almost forty percent of our guns passed between our families

only a small if you buy on the internet already know someone who is in our family but most of them are not and look basic problem here in this country this country is a big wide spread out country it's very free you've a lot of wild and yeah adventurous people ok we do have all right we're going to go to the bar because i real quick real quick is the one thing we have to do is define what a universal meter we're talking about a universal use of the big gun show loophole universal application of the existing check is what i'm hearing when universe was a much expanded check i want to talk to you want to sell a gun you have to go to a licensed gun dealer and pass the background check to be able to sell a gun any time you want instead of just being on the internet i know we're out of time but now what about our let's talk about let's talk about high capacity in a moment because in there i want to play a clip from the hearing this was mark kelly this was the difference has been talking about what happened in two thousand and eleven in january when her his wife was shot here's the quote. the shooter in tucson showed up with two thirty three round magazines one which was in his nine millimeter he unloaded the contents of

that magazine in fifteen seconds very quickly it all happened very very fast before it first bullet went into gabby's head what number thirteen went into a nine year old girl named christina taylor green who was very interested in democracy and our government and really deserved a full life could made it to advancing those ideas if he had a ten round magazine only back up when he tried to reload one thirty three round magazine with another thirty three round magazine he dropped it. and a woman named patricia mace grabbed it and it gave bystanders a time that the tackle him. i contend if that same thing happened when he was trying to reload one ten round magazine with another ten round magazine meaning he did not have access to a high capacity magazine and the same thing happened christina taylor green would be alive today i completely agree do you agree. partly but

bear in mind a general rule would be if you're going to have a law for one people it applies to government people so it's going to be a limit on magazines that means all the democrats and progressive politicians who are armed protected by guns should have the same magazine problem to fill in the first artist should have been the drones that all those should have already been guarding the same rules should apply for the government on the progress of security guards there were no signs of stuff going to argue about this this murder disco also nasty murder and these guns and these massive gun sprees they are a main distraction from the real killing fields which is in as we know as we all know chicago where to find progressive policies have left us communities that it doesn't bother to shouldn't already should be the weapon of choice of mass shootings that are starting to have addressed the mass killings in the democratic strongholds long ago by changing progressive policy on this is the chief of the

automatic this is a bit of a road to argument so if we want to die. young african-americans more just as much as anyone else frankly go where the killings are progressive change their policies and the hell out of last word. those communities the most bloodshed boy boy murder but with guns all the most supportive and african-american communities and latino communities where there is a much higher proportion of gun crime they're overwhelmingly in favor of let's have concealed carry in chicago and ban guns in say texas since our austin and see what happens to the crime rates in these two areas dollars to donuts chicago crime it will. to the alston's we're going to i mean this is it isn't it is interesting about it you have three hundred million guns in america and you also have twelve thousand. a year in the u.k. we have a tiny tiny fraction of that and so you go you also have violent movies and i don't mean you know this is all i think of what i did u.k. i don't need my gun as much as i don't think somebody else has one but

a lot of guns in america that's one of the problems you know the people you're going to get the guns from are the ones who follow the law is what they were taking your guns all the way to do you still have more criminals will not give you're going to snitch is not move you were merely the right people yes but this isn't about more or less this is about right this is not theory this is real life this is people living out in the countryside who want to protect themselves and you should not be allowed to put has a machine gun in a store with your hand machine although you're going to think that there's been some village or in the one nine hundred thirty one that's been illegal payments and i mean a lot of attention on the outside a lot of the same thing we're out of time so we'll leave it at that mark neal. thanks for having me right after the break we'll revisit tom's conversations with great minds with susan kane and learn why american society favors extroverts and discuss what can be done to place more value on introverts.